Appeal 6003843

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages. The first stage (permission in principle) establishes whether a site is suitable in principle. The second stage, technical details consent (TDC), is when detailed proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first stage.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly. An indicative site layout plan was submitted as part of the application. I have treated this as being for illustrative purposes only.

The proposed development was refused by the Council under policies in the South Worcestershire Development Plan, 2016. However, during the course of the appeal this document was replaced by the South Worcestershire Development Plan (the Development Plan), adopted 26 March 2026. I am required to determine the appeal against the current development plan, and have done so using the equivalent policies indicated by the Council. Both main parties have been given the opportunity to submit additional evidence in light of the recently adopted

The main issue is whether the site would be a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the relevant development plan policies for the location of housing and its accessibility to services and facilities, with particular regard to minimising the need to travel by car.

Policy SWDPR03 of the Development Plan establishes the Council’s approach to the distribution of housing across the area. [site address] is a Category 1 settlement, which are identified as having at least four key services. The appeal site lies outside the defined development boundary of the settlement in open countryside, where sub-section D strictly controls development subject to other policies within the Development Plan. Policy SWDPR06 identifies that new development should be located and designed to minimise the need to travel by car.

The Hanley Castle Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan (the Neighbourhood Plan) (2025) allocates land for housing development. Policy RE2 seeks to maintain the separate character and identities of the two principal settlements of [site address] and [name]. It restricts development outside them except in specific circumstances. None of the listed circumstances apply in this instance.

The appeal site forms part of the garden to the front of [site address] , a large, detached dwelling set back from the B4209. It sits within a loose cluster of houses, which is in open farmland between [site address] and [name]. It is not in a conservation area, nor is [site address] a listed building.

The National Design Guide advises that local facilities should be within a 10- minute walk, or an 800m radius to be within a walkable distance. The B4209 has no streetlights but has a continuous, dedicated footway on the appeal site’s side of the carriageway to [site address] . The appeal site is around 1km from the facilities and services that are available in the village centre. The topography is flat and the road relatively straight. Outside the appeal site the road is subject to a 40mph speed limit, reducing to 30mph in the village. [site address] has a public house, village shop and post office, a church, village hall, and primary school. Also, the evidence indicates that there is a bus stop approximately 780m from the site, with services to local towns and villages, as well as Worcester City and a small business park to the east.

Whilst the bus stop and business park are inside of the recommended 800m walking distance radius, other services and facilities lie beyond this. The route may not be arduous for pedestrians or cyclists; however, it would not be attractive during hours of darkness or during inclement weather. Notwithstanding the comments from the Local Highway Authority and other edge of settlement housing allocations, the site is outside the village core and to meet their day-to-day needs, future occupants would likely be dependent on the frequent use of a private car to access local services and those facilities in larger settlements.

I note that the appellant current lives next door and so there would be no net increase in car journeys from the appeal site, however I have no mechanism before me which would secure this indefinitely.

The site is outside the settlements of [site address] and [name], and as such conflicts with Policy RE2 of the Neighbourhood Plan. However, that Policy seeks to maintain the separate character and identities of the two principal settlements of [site address] and [name]. The proposed development would sit within the informal cluster of houses between the two and would not impact on the degree of separation between them. Any harm would, therefore, be limited in nature.

Nevertheless, I conclude that the site would not be a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the relevant development plan policies, for the location of housing and its accessibility to services and facilities, with particular regard to minimising the need to travel by car. The proposal would conflict with Policies SWDPR03 and SWDP06 of the Development Plan and Policy RE2 of the Neighbourhood Plan as set out above.

At the time of determining the planning application the Council was unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. However, under the new Development Plan the Council is able to meet its five-year housing land supply including a 5% buffer, which is the current requirement.

It is also noted that the allocated sites, and the provision of a limited number of windfall sites, are considered by the Neighbourhood Plan to be sufficient to meet the villages’ housing need for the plan period, and that the target growth rate of dwellings per annum has been exceeded.

Section 2A of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 indicates that an authority must give development permission for the carrying out of self-build and custom housebuilding on enough serviced plots of land to meet demand in the authority’s area. Evidence has been presented that, as of November 2024, there was a small deficit of self-build plots when considering demand. I have not been provided with more up-to-date figures, but the provision of 1 self-build dwelling would make a small contribution towards meeting the demand. This small benefit would not, however, overcome the conflict I have found on the main issue.

There would be modest economic and social benefits associated with the construction and occupation of the dwelling, such as through new residents using local services or being employed locally. Whilst the provision of an additional house and these factors weigh in favour of the proposed development, they do not overcome the conflict that I have found with regards to the unsuitable location of the development.

I acknowledge the objections from interested parties with regard to issues including the character and appearance of the area, highway safety and the presence of an electricity substation in the vicinity. These matters were considered by the Council at application stage, in so far as they are relevant, or would be considered in full at TDC stage, and as such they do not form part of the considerations relating to permission in principle.

My attention has been drawn to a number of planning decisions in the area1. However, there are fundamental differences with the appeal before me, including the Council’s housing land supply position and the location of the proposal in relation to services and facilities. In any event, each proposal must be decided on a case by case basis. I have determined the appeal on its own merits and they do not lead me to an alternative conclusion in this case. 1 Appeal References: APP/J1860/W/23/3332645, APP/J1860/W/24/3338781 and APP/J1860/W/25/3365992

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.